Now, I've no official hint where they would cut the movies, but I can guess - specially with LOTR exprience. It was easier with 2 movies; I've come to the conclusion the escape from Thranduil, in the barrels, was the less problematic moment to cut the Hobbit - they were safe from some serious trouble and were merrily going towards bigger adventures and the last epic part of their journey.

With 3 movies, they have to end movie 1 or 2 with quite a bang. So, even if it's very counter-intuitive, I have the feeling they might cut Movie 2 right after Smaug's death. Granted, there isn't much left in the book, but we have to take into consideration the fact that the assault on Dol Guldur happened right before the Battle of Five Armies. And the fact that said battle better be a 50-min action feast if they're going to take their time to stretch the book into 3 movies (ok, that's wishful thinking here ). One of my main reasoning in thinking they would kill Smaug at the end of a 2nd movie is that there's basically no good way to stop a movie between the departure from Laketown and his death. With Gandalf coming with the Eagles during the battle, we have to assume he came as soon as things were settled in Mirkwood, so the battle with the Necromancer has to happen between Smaug's rampage and the Battle of Five Armies. In fact, they might even consider overlapping the end of the assault on Dol Guldur and the battle at Erebor, to make things more intense. And the big battle at the Lonely Mountain should be accompanied by a lot of foreshadowing - with the Necromancer giving orders to attack them while the White Council decides to attack Dol Guldur or is already on the move, and with the various "good guys" nearly coming to butcher each other for some jewels. So, especially with shorter movies, the whole aftermath after Smaug is shot down at the very end of film 2 can well fill into a third one. The tricky bit would be to incite people to come see this third one, because when Smaug dies, people could falsely think this is over and everything will be fine afterwards. The main way of doing this would be, I think, to emphasise Sauron's power still growing there, and even gathering troops for some counter-attack.

I'm not entirely sure where exactly the first movie would end, but I'd say it would end roughly with Beorn - though I've no idea at which part of this long chapter. Company would just have survived a quite long ordeal, under the Mountain and then with the frying pan, and having them delivered by the Eagles to Beorn's safety is the best bet - some important action has ended and they're now ready to take some rest before going on. Plus, ending it here would mean that Gandalf would leave them early in 2nd movie - I don't see them having Gandalf going his own way while there's still part of a first movie to go through. "Gods don't like people not doing much work. People who aren't busy all the time may start to think." - Terry Pratchett, Small Gods

I'm not sure how you would start listing without going on for pages. I should get over to the Reading Room, I guess. Did you read Rateliff's History of the Hobbit, LR? He elaborates pretty much all of them, but I'm sure there are a few to add, still. Troll scene alone contains at least nine. Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.

The only way I can see this working is if it's three two-hour movies, not three three-hour movies like the LotR films.

Nine hours of film would simply drown the core story of Bilbo's journey under a lot of needless blood and thunder.

So what happens to the stuff they've already shot? They just finished the whole movie, almost. They're going to have to repace everything to spread it out now. Are they going to have to call everyone back and shoot new footage? Or will they just shoot new material and stitch it all together and hope it works?

We'll see how this goes, but I wonder if the studio didn't smell a major payday and basically told PJ, "You're making three movies."

Because I reckon opinions on this will be mixed, even amongst hardcore ringers.

The release date of the new film 3 is scheduled for summer 2014, not December like the others. Which suggests that instead of a third chapter we're just going to be getting a 'There And Back Again Part 2', which reeks of a Warner Bros cash-in aka, HP7.

"Milk em' for all they've got!" I'd bet the two three hour films will now be three two hour films. Whatever. The thing that makes me mad the most about it, is having to wait "X" amount more for the final film. "There is a long road yet," said Gandalf. "But it is the last road," said Bilbo.

...is that for at least the past couple of years, it has been well established that the movie named after the Hobbit book would actually be based on "the Hobbit" as well as "the Appendices",which is practically a short book on its own. I understand that some would want a pure Hobbit movie. But on the other hand ,The edition of the Appendices are actually stories relevant to the lotr world. It actually fleshes out the stories of the Hobbit, which Tolkien wanted to do. I would think Tolkien enthusiests would love the idea of more of the Tolkien world being brought to life. Rather than many being wary of the idea. I for one always thought of it as a bit annoying that Gandalf keeps conveniently disappearing during the Hobbit story for no apparent reason. And I'm sure most of the audience who aren't hardcore Tolkien geeks, would wonder the same thing. The Appendices answers this question. And the movie will display this additional Tolkien info. I think its best we get past the idea that this is a Hobbit movie and finally accept that this is a "Hobbit/Appendices" movie. Both are works of Tolkien just like the LOTR trilogy are all works of Tolkien. PJ didn't write his own book based on Tolkiens world. He is simply adapting the books for the movies. For example, Turiel may be a creation of PJ, BUT the Idea is to 1: Condense the randomness of nameless Elves into one recognizable character and 2: Give the females a character to identify with in a 2-3 hour film they are sitting through. I FULLY appreciate that hardcore fans want something they love done pure and as faithful as possible. But be open minded enough to understand that your love isn't the only variable to be considered. Though I personally admire the loyalty So three movies is fine with me. Because they legitimatly feel there is a good reason for it. Based on the books. I dont think its a Money grabbing scheme. Though i'm sure they will make more money from this anyway Dont let the failure of the Star Wars preqeuls slant your views on the potential of prequels. Just because one thing was done badly, it doesn't make it a rule that things like this can only end badly.

Once one adjusts to PJ's attitude to 'reinvisioning' Tolkien, then one can adjust to the idea of three Hobbit Movies. He'll do a good job. Purists just need to adjust to PJ's Way, or abort (i.e. not watch the movies if it'll only cause too much pain).

all over so much exctiement and naysayers, not only here of course. I'll be honest and say that i did NOT want the 3 films, but not because they can't do it, but because we'll now have to wait till 2014 to see it all. Plain and simple.

Other than that, i trust PJ and crew on this one. Those whinning about this being done for the money, well, tell me of someone working only for love. So many people are employed making these films and a third film means more job for them.

Besides the money, i'm sure the other very important reason they're doing this is because they can. And by that i mean they HAVE the material for it. Those of you claiming theyt don't have it, you don't know that for sure. You don't know what their plan is or how they're gonna do it. We'll have to wait till 2014 to actually make the statement for sure.

I'm not a complete happy camper on this one, just like so many things done on this film already, but as i've said many times before, i trust PJ and his gang.

Thanks, and yes...all of sudden they're intent of filming every page of the appendices...?
[In reply to]

Can't Post

Here comes the 20-minute "Fall of Arnor" scene...My Top 5 Wish List for "The Hobbit"5. Legolas will surf down Smaug's neck 4. Bilbo will be revealed to a Robot 3. Naked PJ cameo as Ghan-Buri-Ghan 2. Use of not only 3D, but smell-o-vision, plus the inclusion of axes coming out of the seats and poking the audience when appropriate 1. Not only keep the claim that Thorin & Co. ran amok in Mirkwood "molesting people", but depict said incident in vivid detail!!!!!

I guess I'm a kind of recent convert. Being a Purist, I have been a big critic of LotR, but always appreciated the Movies where they captured the Tolkien essence. The Tolkien parts were done well, the changing of characters and addings (like hyenas in a totally un-Tolkien scene made me grind my teeth!) were matters for angst. The thing is, if one can't watch the movies without grinding ones teeth, why bother? So now I watch them and see them as a 'revisioning' and not so much an 'adaptation'. It keeps me sane. I imagine The Hobbit will be more of the same - so why not three movies? If one can enjoy them for what they will be, a lightweight adventure tale loosely based on Tolkien, then so be it. Special effects and two dimensional heroic characters work in other movies, so why be preciouss about it? I do, after all, want to see a good rollicking movie (or three) now and then.

there should be no Galadriel, Legolas, Tauriel, Saruman, etc...but there is. It's not fair! Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.

...what this means is that the same guy who cut almost all of Faramir's story out of Return of the King because he just didn't have time to tell it, is now going to take a book that's about 1/5 as long as RoTK and make it THREE MOVIES?!!

If that's the case, I demand he re-edit RoTK as two movies and put Faramir's story back in. Starry mantle and all. Justice for Faramir!

I'm nervous about there being three Hobbit movies, but you have a point. I like Harry Potter, but I place Tolkien at number 1. And there have been other movies based on books that were longer when there was little or unnecessary material. At least there are the appendices for The Hobbit, I just don't know if it'll be enough. "It's okay, I feel like getting up and screaming every time you walk into a room." -Lestrade, Sherlock S2,ep3.

PJ found time for hyenas but not enough for Faramir. I know... I know! ...

But nonetheless, I think he'll have plenty of things to fill up three movies with. There's The Hobbit, there's the Appendixes, and there's PJ and his two Girlfriends to imagine-up all sorts of character development, re-developments, and improved-character-arcing --- improving on Tolkien's grasp of characterization and character-arcing. I mean, Tolkien was a bit light on in the Storytelling department apparently, Sarah. We all know that. Haven't PJ and the Girls made that clear!

Imagine more LotR movies! Maybe more Tolkien things could have been fitted in.

Hey... what about The Black Riders (done Hitchcock-like), Crickhollow, the Old Forest, Old Man Willow, Tom and Goldberry, The Barrow-wights, and The Prancing Pony (done properly!) Almost a movie just there! How exciting and dreadful - just like in the book - and sooo filmable!

I'm expecting shorter run times for the films now. And no Viggo. A very sad day for hutch. Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.